As regards the WoS OO pish – Hee Haw to do with actual religion. Everything to do with bigoted tribalism.
Our church has hundreds of members, none of whom are in the OO. Other local churches report the same phenomenon. Funny eh?

Sorry, bad choice of words, I do realise it’s bigotry hiding behind religion, apologies for the (justifiable) offence caused!

apologies for the (justifiable) offence caused!

None taken. Double oppression for you on Sunday though 😉

Religion aside for a moment, has there never been a time in your life when you’ve believed something to be true, in the pit of your stomach without empirical, demonstrable truth that it actually is?

Isn’t there a subtle yet defining difference here between ‘true’ or ‘factual’?

I broadly share your general non-enjoyment of watching football. Yet I’m fairly certain that I also understand why other people enjoy it. Same goes for cricket (in a diminishing way, I have to try harder to understand why!)

However, both cricket and football do not require an enormous effort to verify as factual. Yet if someone claimed (quite literally) – ‘It’s true, Manchester United are favoured by God’ – it seems reasonable that they shoulder the burden to provide the empirical/demonstrable truth of this ‘deity’, first and foremost – if they wish to be believed. Rather than I simply believe that it is ‘true’ because the team’s performance was good over a season. Extraordinary claims, and all that…

molgrips

That, to me, is poor thinking. Poor thinkers exist on both sides of the debate, definitely not a symptom of religion.

I agree, but I spent a long time looking for the best thinkers on the side of religion (assuming they must exist somewhere) and honestly I haven’t seen much of any interest (except for those deists whose god is so distant they may as well not exist).

However, both cricket and football do not require an enormous effort to verify as factual. If someone said to me – ‘It’s true, Manchester United are favoured by God’ – I would require them to provide the empirical/demonstrable truth of this ‘deity’ first and foremost. Rather than simply believing that it is ‘true’ because the team’s performance was good over a season. Extraordinary claims, and all that…

what about e.g. ‘this relationship is definitely the right one for me’ or ‘XYZ is a nasty piece of work’?

And as it happens, go onto any newspaper or sports site and you’ll find plenty of atheists saying ‘It’s true, Manchester United are favoured by referees/the FA/etc’ without a shred of empirical/demonstrable truth… 😉

If someone said to me – ‘It’s true, Manchester United are favoured by God’ – I would require them to provide the empirical/demonstrable truth of this ‘deity’ first and foremost

Dragging religion back into it. Naughty 😉

The question I was asking , to use your example, would be if someone believed that Manchester United were the greatest team in the world despite not having won the Premiership or the FA Cup or any European competitions.
The persons conviction regarding Man Utd would likely be unshaken despite a lack of evidence to support it.
Neither true nor factual but believed nonetheless.

Something that, you know to be right , which others around you may find irrational or even a little odd.
A strongly held conviction based on feelings or instinct rather than provable facts?

no, anything I hold to strongly without evidence I’m happy to admit is completely illogical and is pure emotional response and as such I have no expectation or right to think that anyone else would either give a monkeys or make allowance for it.

… belief that the world is flat for instance…

You see, Stoatsbrother, you have suggested EXACTLY the sort of inaccuracy I am talking about: these things that get set forward as facts, when in truth they are nothing of the sort.

The myth of the flat earth

If we just asked each other questions instead of asserting presuppositions, we would end up in a better place. How can that be controversial?!?

no, anything I hold to strongly without evidence I’m happy to admit is completely illogical and is pure emotional response and as such I have no expectation or right to think that anyone else would either give a monkeys or make allowance for it.

So, as long as you admit it’s an irrational belief, you should be left in peace to get on with it without any one questioning it?

For me it’s Football. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I can’t see any merit or entertainment in the game of Football. It does absolutely nothing for me. I’ve tried to like it, I really have. I coach a boys team twice a week and hold a coaching qualification and my boys love it. Still don’t get it.

Fine, but there’s no argument about it’s existence. Everybody can see the evidence.

I spent a long time looking for the best thinkers on the side of religion (assuming they must exist somewhere) and honestly I haven’t seen much of any interest (except for those deists whose god is so distant they may as well not exist).

@eat_the_pudding: Really? How much have you read of Rowan Williams, Eric Mascall, Jürgen Moltmann, Hans Küng, or Reinhold Niebuhr for example? What about Dostoyevsky even?

Could it be that the vast vast majority of the ‘best thinkers on the side of religion’ have better things to do than constantly explain themselves to internet commentators? There are a few who include, as part of what they do, explaining religion to those who ask about it; but for the most part, ‘proving’ basic tenets is not what any of us/them are interested in.

“special pleading” is actually a phrase with a specific meaning, asking for different treatment than others might receive. I’d view it as an accurate description of a particular scenario, rather than pejorative.

I’m sorry but not suprised that molgrips and JY have chosen to take offense on SaxonRider’s behalf. Seems to me they are playing the man, not the idea… No one has ever accused me of being passive aggressive before… 😉

Religion aside for a moment, has there never been a time in your life when you’ve believed something to be true, in the pit of your stomach without empirical, demonstrable truth that it actually is?

Something that, you know to be right , which others around you may find irrational or even a little odd.
A strongly held conviction based on feelings or instinct rather than provable facts?

When I was a child, I had an invisible friend who went everywhere with me who I talked to about my worries.

Then, when I grew up, I stopped going to church.

So, as long as you admit it’s an irrational belief, you should be left in peace to get on with it without any one questioning it?

As long as said person doesn’t use such a belief to inflict harm on others, or request special treatment or demand a privileged place in society then for the most part I’d agree with the sentiment. No one however should be above being questioned and no one has the right to expect to not be offended.

Fine, but there’s no argument about it’s existence. Everybody can see the evidence

The point was not about the existence of Football, The point was about my deeply held conviction that Football is shite . A belief I hold true to despite massive amounts of supporting evidence to the contrary. …..but you knew that and chose to dodge the actual question I asked you.

It’s OK. I forgive you 😉

When I was a child, I had an invisible friend who went everywhere with me who I talked to about my worries.

Then, when I grew up, I stopped going to church.

come on, this kind of sneering adds nothing to the discussion.

would be if someone believed that Manchester United were the greatest team in the world despite not having won the Premiership or the FA Cup or any European competitions.
The persons conviction regarding Man Utd would likely be unshaken despite a lack of evidence to support it.
Neither true nor factual but believed nonetheless.

Well, ‘naughty’ or not – I agree with you that certain people’s beliefs are unshakeable no matter the absence of supporting evidence. Excluding religion from this phenomenon would be like talking about human-powered vehicles yet ‘let’s not mention bicycles’…

It’s odd because I always assumed most theists (Ok monotheists) have no trouble disbelieving all the other deities/demigods/woodland elves etc…yet so many find atheism to be an intolerable position. Genuinely confused by this. Do they just ‘blame it on the Devil’, or something?

Are we going to have a ‘The difficulty in discussing difficult to discuss threads’ thread next?

😕

So, as long as you admit it’s an irrational belief, you should be left in peace to get on with it without any one questioning it?

as long as it doesn’t effect others rights or roles within the society in which you exist then crack on really. no one has the “right to be offended” so basically just dont be a dick and be excellent to each other.

asking for different treatment than others might receive

I am asking in this instance because it is the subject under discussion, and it happens to be a subject I have some investment in, beyond being a practitioner.

I would most certainly ask for the same approach, or stand side-by-side with any doctor or lawyer or welder or computer scientist if it was their subject being discussed without a certain level of recognition that there may be sources and people worth referring back to at times.

I definitely DON’T believe in special treatment for me, personally, or for religion, in debate or conversation. I just believe in the calm, considerate, collaborative treatment of all subjects, because I think it gets us closer to the truth in most matters.

And the fact that I know it won’t happen any time soon won’t stop me from asking! 😉

Jeez SR….either you’re laid up in hospital bored stupid, work for a company that doesn’t require you to do any work, or are addicted to STW.

Its sunny man…get out on your bike! 8)

(no offence like!)

saxonrider

Really? How much have you read of Rowan Williams, Eric Mascall, Jürgen Moltmann, Hans Küng, or Reinhold Niebuhr for example? What about Dostoyevsky even?

I read widely over a long period of time, guided by other christians and ministers recommendations, yes including books by some of the above.

It was mostly pre-internet, and I wasn’t really expecting any major authors to turn up?

I found little that was very satisfying at the time.
With hindsight, I found a lot of special pleading, wooly thing, goalpost moving and finally nothing that made more sense than the null hypothesis.

Long term, I suspect got considerably more benefit from Spike Milligan, Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett.

PS .. you say you’re “not interested in proof”
really!
If there actually was any proof are you honestly saying you wouldn’t have a peek and then tell everyone in the world as quickly as possible?

I suspect your lack of interest may actually be because of a lack of evidence? Correct me if I’m wrong.

So, as long as you admit it’s an irrational belief, you should be left in peace to get on with it without any one questioning it?

as long as it doesn’t effect others rights or roles within the society in which you exist then crack on really. no one has the “right to be offended” so basically just dont be a dick and be excellent to each other.

That’s Ok then.

I’ll just leave comments from the other thread here….

perchypanther – Member

1.

Against all logic and not as a result of my upbringing.

Rather, it’s because I choose to and I get something from it.
Inexplicably, it fills a hole in my being that would otherwise be empty.

perchypanther – Member

Kinda, I believed there to be a hole and chose to fill it with something I believe does exist.
Belief is funny like that.

Difference is that I don’t ever try to tell anyone else that what I believe is right and what they believe is wrong.

I choose my own path and try not to be a dick about it.

The point was not about the existence of Football, The point was about my deeply held conviction that Football is shite .

That’s just a strongly-held preference. As such, it has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a thing, which is the subject under discussion.

I was using your football reference to bring you back to the subject at hand.

… and I am completely indifferent as to whether you forgive or don’t forgive me.

I forgive you your indifference.

considerate

Being the key word here IMO.

Invisible friends, sky fairies and all the other nonsense spouted on here is the level of debate you might enjoy in a primary school playground. It does nothing to further the debate and only gets folks backs up. There is something to be said for treating folk with respect, ironically one of the oft quoted complaints about religion is not doing this, usually spouted by someone in between insults of their own.

And I say that as an atheist myself.

Invisible friends, sky fairies and all the other nonsense spouted on here is the level of debate you might enjoy in a primary school playground. It does nothing to further the debate and only gets folks backs up. There is something to be said for treating folk with respect, ironically one of the oft quoted complaints about religion is not doing this, usually spouted by someone in between insults of their own.

And I say that as an atheist myself.

couldn’t agree more. I too am atheist but discussions like this often make me side with the religious!

It also doesn’t help when people conflate ‘someone who believes in a god’ with ‘organised religion’ (which is indeed responsible for plenty of wrongs). And also ‘a discussion about religion’ with ‘prove or disprove the existence of X’, which is an entirely separate issue IMO

@perchypanther

so you are happy to admit that your belief in a mystical sky pixie is totally illogical is not deserving of any special treatment or respect, its just a personal thing that helps get you through day without being a knobend, tip top, I have no issues with that at all.

Now how can we get those blooming creationist nut jobs to stop trying teach their made up mumbo jumbo as a science?

“It does nothing to further the debate and only gets folks backs up. There is something to be said for treating folk with respect”

treat the person with respect, but the “belief” as ridiculous. If you respect the belief as having merit and deserving of respect then in validates the delusional behavior, in much the same way as coping with someone having a psychosis episode.

I suspect your lack of interest may actually be because of a lack of evidence? Correct me if I’m wrong.

I have spent my life pondering these questions. I have half-jokingly on other threads talked about the existence-of-God question, and questions posed by the natural sciences as constituting different epistemic categories, but now let me repeal the ‘half-jokingly’ bit.

The existence-of-God question, and questions posed by the natural sciences, constitute different epistemic categories.

Those who say there is no evidence for God are right (after a certain, philosophical fashion): there is no empirical proof that a god exists. But it is only recently that empirical evidence became the only acceptable sort in public discourse, and in any case, the idea that God ‘exists’ in any way comparable to a measurable thing is not an idea native to Christian theology prior to the Scholastics.

I, together with most of the Christian philosophical/theological tradition, have no interest in proof. It is a question I might play with from time to time for entertainment’s sake, but it is wa-a-a-a-y down on my priority list in terms of questions I deal with.

Please accept that as your ‘correction’. 😉

Now how can we get those blooming creationist nut jobs to stop trying teach their made up mumbo jumbo as a science?

Who cares what Young Earth Creationists do? Since when did they even begin to cause a stir on the social landscape? I understand that polls show that many Americans believe in such a thing, but first of all, you’d have to believe the polls, and secondly, you’d have to consider whether or not those Americans have any sway over anything that affects your life.

I’d say that, as long as they are kept out of office (lest they be put in charge of the red button, or environmental policy, or whatever), don’t worry about it.

@perchypanther

so you are happy to admit that your belief in a mystical sky pixie is totally illogical is not deserving of any special treatment or respect, its just a personal thing that helps get you through day without being a knobend, tip top, I have no issues with that at all.

Exactly. Try telling that to some people on here though.
Special respect? No.
Respect that you would afford anyone. I’d expect that as a matter of course.

Actually, struggling a bit not to be a knobend about this today.

Sought guidance in the scripture…

The book of Panther – Chapter 4 verse 20

“Taunt ye not the unbelieving infidel for they know not the ways of believing in stuff. Forgive them for their indifference and cricket too. Thou shalt not fire zingy one liners to bring them low for thou wouldst be seen to be naughty in the sight of the Lord. Just give it a break for there is great toil to be done and much coffee to be drunk.”

I think a lot of the problem comes from some of the language used by the “anti” crowd.

I don’t believe in Allah but I would never dream of talking to a Muslim friend or acquaintance using offensive language like “sky pixies”, “lies”, “fairy tales” etc. That’s just deliberately offensive and obtuse – and there’s no need for it. It’s quite possible to respectfully disagree with someone’s beliefs without having to use combative language and deliberately inflammatory words.

@eat_the_pudding: Really? How much have you read of Rowan Williams, Eric Mascall, Jürgen Moltmann, Hans Küng, or Reinhold Niebuhr for example? What about Dostoyevsky even?

The problem with this argument is that all these people’s work is predicated on the existence of God. You may well be conversant with these subjects and more erudite and informed. However, we aren’t discussing ethics, philosophy or morality on its own. Bring God into it & it becomes religion and becomes a discussion about what a deity wants you to do. If you don’t believe in God, that discussion becomes meaningless. It’s a bit like claiming that you are an expert on fire breathing dragons. You can have read as much as you like about the subject. It doesn’t make them exist.

I, together with most of the Christian philosophical/theological tradition, have no interest in proof.

Presumably you believe that your god exists? What leads you to suppose this?

the sky pixie thing is a bit insulting but I think its just some people trying to express their utter amazement that a modern educated person could actually believe in something that is completely unprovable and ilogical

I’m sorry but not suprised that molgrips and JY have chosen to take offense on SaxonRider’s behalf.

I am not taking offense on his behalf. I am not taking offense. I am calling out bad behaviour. SaxonRider can easily take care of himself!

treat the person with respect, but the “belief” as ridiculous.

Those two things overlap quite a bit though. If you say ‘well, I don’t believe in it’ then fine. If you say ‘it’s stupid, and only an imbecile would beleive it’ then that’s an insult to the believer isn’t it? Of course it is.

I, together with most of the Christian philosophical/theological tradition, have no interest in proof.

This is more or less what I was going to say next. Does it actually matter whether or not God exists? Think about that carefully before answering.

I wholeheartedly agree with perchypanther’s belief that football is shite.

Would a football lover be offended by that?

Testify Sister!

For it is written in the Book of Panther Chapter 47 Verse 12

“The wicked shall wish to commit lascivious sins of the flesh such as wearing tight lycra clothing and kissing each other and having mullet bubble perms. They shall hide these sins from right thinking people by pretending it’s a sport. They shall cavort in huge communal baths and worship false idols in shape of trophies……but it’s okay for kiddies cause they could use the exercise and burns off excess energy”

Amen.

Who cares what Young Earth Creationists do? Since when did they even begin to cause a stir on the social landscape? I understand that polls show that many Americans believe in such a thing, but first of all, you’d have to believe the polls, and secondly, you’d have to consider whether or not those Americans have any sway over anything that affects your life.

A former student of mine lost her job, in a school in England in the last couple of years, because she mentioned the evolution of the atmosphere during a chemistry lesson. A child in the class told their parent, the parent told their Rabbi, the Rabbi complained to the school, the school gave her a formal written warning because she’d implied an old Earth.

You’re dismissive of the impact of Young Earth creationists, but religion that others accept influences everyone here. Abortion is a criminal offence in Northern Ireland, because of religion. Until recently, my sister would have been unable to marry the person she loved, because of religion.